|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/01/2012 06:59:49 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by CJinCA:
I always wondered why all the other "Christian" religions didn't drift back to the Catholic Religion. After all, that's where all the "Creeds" came from isn't it? Matthew 16:18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church........." :-) |
Well, we never left the catholic (the word meaning "universal") church. It's the Catholic church some people have some disagreements with. The Apostles' Creed, however, is held by both Catholics and Protestants. I'm not positive about Eastern Orthodox, but I'll ask my friend who is a member of that sect. |
But all Christians were Roman Catholic until Luther "left" the church. |
|
|
|
05/01/2012 07:36:15 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
But all Christians were Roman Catholic until Luther "left" the church. |
I know what you are trying to say, but it isn't quite historically true. The first real split in the church was 500 years earlier between Eastern Orthodox and the Western Church (which then became "Roman Catholic" meaning they followed the leadership in Rome).
You have smaller splits even earlier. Coptic Christians (in the news these days due to persecution in Egypt) became distinct in 451AD.
Anyway, many people do yearn for a truly catholic church. Being human, however, we like to squabble over smaller differences rather than seeing that we agree on the big things. |
|
|
|
05/01/2012 07:42:19 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... The faith does have enough wiggle room to remain relevant to society over thousands of years and yet its core remains unchanged. |
... relevant to whose society?
If indeed what you are advocating here is true, then one would think that the faithful would strive to adhere to the tenets of the church, something which could be the subject of rather lengthy discussion both in Europe and North America.
Relevant yes, but is that something that will prevail... only time will tell.
Ray |
|
|
|
05/02/2012 08:29:13 PM · #79 |
Late night so I won't comment much but I'll address a couple of thoughts.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Matthew:
o. Religious constructs provide power (to those who want power) and comfort (for those who need comfort) and answers to mysteries (for those with curiosity salved by simple solutions) - people are drawn in as a result of these biological needs. |
I don't really doubt this on some level, but I'd say it is, as I said, quite cynical to consider this the raison d'etre of religion and not consider it the same for other systems. Democracy could be said to provide all of the above too. Or science. Or nearly any worldview. What is the reasoning behind exclusively viewing religion through this lens? |
Not really - taking your examples I'd say that religious systems embrace, rely upon and exploit human frailties, whereas democracy and science try to overcome them.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Matthew:
o. It doesn't actually matter too much what the detail of the religion says (though if it is vague and broadly in line with current social morality it helps): most people will selectively read/adopt any religious text to reflect their own morality anyway. For that reason, a religion will seem obviously right and natural to its adherents. |
This is most assuredly wrong. Judeo-Christianity, as an example, changed the moral compass of the western world to one nearly opposite from before. Tacitus, in his history, lists a number of Jewish "moral perversions" and included among those he found particularly "sinister and revolting" was the fact that, "it is a deadly sin to kill an unwanted child." We value life profoundly enough that it is now infanticide that is deemed sinister and revolting, the exact opposite conviction. Surely the protection of infants cannot be deemed to be "broadly in line" with popular thinking of the time.
Your statement can also be shown to miss the mark on purely logical grounds. If all religions are vague and broadly in line with current social morality, why all the purported religious strife? Why does one religion look very different from another? If we're all just drawing water from the well of common morality, then you'd think we'd arrive at relatively undifferentiated results. |
Using the example of Christianity, you must surely have come across a wide variety of attitudes on the the existence of exceptions, or the relative importance of religious rules surrounding the distribution of wealth, homosexuality, working on the sabbath, suicide, eating certain foodstuffs, wearing of certain clothes, matrimonial fidelity etc? The fact that some religions (like Christianity) have many sometimes conflicting rules makes it all the easier for almost any position to be claimed for either side of a dispute (even on some big topics like slavery).
On many deeper topics there are fundamental similarities (don't kill, be charitable, worship god). But people like fighting over inconsequential details. Most of the big truths don't vary from religion to religion (killing, stealing, infidelity etc).
Message edited by author 2012-05-02 20:30:07. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/20/2024 07:36:52 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/20/2024 07:36:52 AM EDT.
|
